JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Punjabi University, Patiala, have preferred this revision, assailing the trial Court’s order dated September 6, 1995, whereby the University is directed to send provisional intimation regarding the result of the plaintiff-respondent of B.A. Part-II (Honours) in Economics on plaintiffs completing the formalities required for getting the provisional intimation of the result.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that respondent Lal Jeet Singh filed a suit for declaration that the action of the defendant-petitioners in withholding the plaintiffs roll number for appearing in final examination of Honours in Economics B.A. Part II year and not allowing him to appear in the final examination commencing with effect from April 21, 1995, is illegal null and void arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and is not binding on the plaintiff. He also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant-petitioners to issue roll number to him to allow to appear in the final examination.
3. The defendant-petitioners contested the case on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent has no such right as he has not attended the classes as is required by the University Regulations. As he is short in attendance, roll number is not issued to him to appear in the said examination.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent appeared in the aforesaid examination after obtaining orders from the trial Court. Thereafter he filed a petition that since he has appeared in the said examination the University be directed to declare his provisional result, so that he may appear in the next examination. He also prayed that certain documents i.e. copy of attendance register be also produced by the defendant-petitioners.
5. By the impugned order, the trial Court held that there is a procedure for provisional intimation of the result. Hence the petition was allowed and the University was directed to send provisional intimation regarding his result of B.A. Part II (Honours) in Economic. The University was also directed to produce documents i.e. attendance register from September 24, 1994 to October 4, 1994 and of 15th and 17th December 1994.
6. In this Court the respondent filed a petition Under Section 151 C.P.C. Along with it he produced a petition filed by him Under Section 340 Cr. P.C. against Shri Kataria and against the defendants for utilising forged documents on the ground that the defendant-petitioners have produced photostat copies of attendance register of the plaintiff and in one copy against his name the line is left blank and in another copy ‘O’ is mentioned in all the columns of that line. He himself produced true copies of such entries.
7. Krishan Kumar Dhami, Senior Assistant, Department of Economics, Punjabi University, Patiala filed reply and contended that each teacher has to prepare three copies of the attendance record. One is submitted to the Dean Academic Affairs, second to the office of the concerned department and third is retained by the concerned teacher. As per the practice of the University the total attendance of all the students is progressively added. In the copy submitted to the Dean, Academic Affairs, against plaintiffs name the whole of the line is shown as blank. Further at the end progressive total lectures are mentioned as ‘1’. In the second copy submitted to the Department of Economics the entries against plaintiffs roll number have been filled in three figures ‘O’ but the progressive total remains the same i.e. ‘1’. Therefore, the question of forgery does not arise. He has also submitted a chart in his reply as to how many lectures the plaintiff has attended and what is deficiency on this account.
8. During arguments the respondent’s learned counsel raised a preliminary objection that Registrar of the Punjabi University has no locus standi to file this revision as he has neither pleaded nor placed on record any resolution passed by the University authorising him to file this revision. In support of his contention, he has relied on Panjab University v. Tilak Raj Arora, (1991-1) 99 P.L.R. 531, Murti Raghunath Ji. v. Joginder Singh etc., 1971 Current Law Journal, 47, Punjab Wakf of Board v. Kahan Chand, (1988-2) 96 P.L.R. 702,
9. All these authorities are distinguishable on facts. They all relate to filing of the appeal without any specific authorisation either by the University or by the department or by the registered Society. The reasoning is that the University/Department/Society has to take a decision whether to challenge any decision passed against the said University/Department/Society. The reason is that if appeal is to be filed, the appellant is required to incur expenses, which require specific grant and authorisation. But, is in this case the University has not filed any appeal in this Court. It is only a revision against the said order. It is not the law that if any interlocutory order is passed during the pendency of the suit and if the University intends to assail it by filing a revision. Admittedly, the Registrar of the petitioner- University is authorised to file the suit. Appeal in that sense cannot be said to be continuation of the suit, but definitely the said authority includes the authority to , file revision against interlocutory orders. Hence the above assailment to the maintainability of the revision is meritless and is hereby rejected.
10. The plaintiff-respondent’s learned counsel submitted that between the period from September 19, 1994 to February 10, 1995, the plaintiff-respondent played for the University in University games/National games etc. for 52 days and thus he is entitled to get relaxation on this count.
11. The defendant-petitioners’ learned counsel submitted that if any student plays for the University in such events, he is entitled to get relaxation with regard to his attendance, but even then he is required to attend 60 per cent of the periods in each class. In this case the plaintiff-respondent has not attended classes upto this percentage. He has only attended 36.3 per cent lectures while he was required to attend 66 per cent lectures delivered.
12. So far as the above controversy is concerned, it relates to the facts of the case. The trial Court is required to decide this point when the merits of the case will be considered and decided.
13. The last contention is whether the University can be ordered to declare the result of the plaintiff-respondent provisionally as directed by the trial Court. In the grounds of revision in para No. 4 the defendant-petitioners have reproduced the provision with regard to provisional intimation of result. It is extracted in extenso below:- .
“A provisional intimation regarding result of a candidate whose result is withheld is given to enable him to seek re-evaluation/rechecking as admissible under the rules in such subject/paper(s) in which he might choose to do so within the period prescribed in the Ordinances of the University and also to enable timely completion of due formalities to admission to subsequent examination if otherwise eligible under ordinances of the University within the admissible period, in the event of his having not cleared the full examination. This provisional intimation of result will stand automatically cancelled in case such a candidate fails to clear the lower examination within the specified period.”
14. A plain perusal of this provision reveals that if a student appears in any examination as per Ordinances of the University he can ask that provisional intimation be given to him about his result so that he may seek re-evaluation, rechecking and also to enable him timely completion of due formalities for admission to subsequent examination if otherwise eligible under Ordinances of the University. In this case after filing the suit, under the orders of the trial Court the plaintiff-respondent has appeared in B.A. Part II (Honors) in Economics examination and now he wants the University to intimate him his result provisionally, so that he may try to appear in the next examination. Thus, he intends to flout the provisions of the Ordinances of the University. The Supreme Court in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986)2 SCC 667 has observed :-
“We cannot by our flat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws………..”
“It is further held we regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college but also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is the situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time.”
15. If the plaintiff-respondent has not attended the requisite number of lectures, he was not entitled to appear in the examination. The trial Court has yet to decide this point in controversy. But still under the orders of the Trial Court, playing upon the sympathy which a court is prone to show towards students, who show their keenness to appear in the examinations, he appeared in the examination and now against the said rule (quoted above) he has obtained the impugned order directing the University to intimate him provisionally his result of the said examination, so that he may appear in the next examination. This unwanted sympathy many a times is more harmful and causes injustice to both the parties. If the University has its own statute, Ordinance Rules and Regulations the students are required to abide by them. If any mala fide is imputed to any office bearer of the University, that can be enquired into and relief can be granted is claimed.
16. Further, the main relief prayed for in the civil suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was declaration that withholding of his roll number and thereby not permitting him to appear in the said examination be declared null and void. By seeking interim reliefs he has appeared in that examination and by the impugned order the trial Court has directed the University to declare his result provisionally, so that he may appear in the second on coming examination. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. K.M. Ramona Perhar, J.T. 1994(5) S.C. 632, has held:
“…….This court has emphasised in several decisions that passing of interim orders-more particularly of a mandatory nature like the present one-is neither a matter of course nor a matter of charity. The power to grant interim orders is coupled with the duty to consider all the relevant facts and legal principles relevant in that behalf.”
Earlier in U.P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 671, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it is a well known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted. In Home Secretary U.T. of Chandigarh v. Darshanjit Singh Grewal, J.T. 1993(4) S.C. 387, the Apex Court laid down a guideline that such mandatory orders ought not be made at an interlocutory stage as they foreclose the options at the final hearing. The trial Court utterly failed to take into consideration this aspect of the disputed matter. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, AIR. 1992 S.C. 2412, the Apex Court has given a note of caution while granting interlocutory remedies in these words :
“……..We are afraid that this kind of adiministration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life”
Surprisingly enough neither the plaintiff-respondent nor the lower court ever made an attempt to get/decide this suit expeditiously so that it may come to an end before another academic session starts.
17. Hence, in my considered view by passing the impugned order, the trial Court has fallen into that error of showing unwanted sympathy to the plaintiff-respondent. This part of the impugned order where by the University is directed to provisionally intimate the plaintiff-respondent his result of B.A. Part-II (Honours) in Economics Examination is set aside. The trial Court is now direct to decide the suit within a span of three months. Other petitions filed by the plaintiff-respondent are hereby dismissed. Thus, the petition is allowed.
18. Copy of the order be conveyed to the trial Court.